§ The result
Thomas International leads Workstream by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Thomas International, filed under Assessment, finishes on 48 and Workstream, filed under Screening, on 39, 9 points apart. Workstream takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Thomas International, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Thomas International 43, Workstream 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 40% of the weighted advantage Thomas International holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Thomas International
Thomas International provides psychometric and aptitude assessments (behaviour/DISC, cognitive ability, personality and emotional intelligence) with an AI coaching layer, used for hiring, candidate selection and employee development.
Vendor profile
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Thomas International is filed under Assessment AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Thomas International | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 1981 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Thomas International 43 · Workstream 20
4.1 weighted points to Thomas International
20% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Thomas International 54 · Workstream 40
2.8 weighted points to Thomas International
15% weight · 74% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Thomas International 57 · Workstream 47
1.5 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Thomas International 51 · Workstream 61
1.2 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Thomas International 33 · Workstream 27
0.9 weighted points to Thomas International
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Thomas International 40 · Workstream 35
0.6 weighted points to Thomas International
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Thomas International 60 · Workstream 56
0.3 weighted points to Thomas International
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Thomas International minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Thomas International | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 54 | 40 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 43 | 20 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 33 | 27 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 47 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 51 | 61 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 48 (F) | 39 (F) | +9 | +9.1 |
§ Evidence
Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.
An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.
| Criterion | Weight | Thomas International | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 11 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Thomas International has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Thomas International, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Thomas International last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.
§ Where next